Bitcoin Forum

Why some vip donators are in default trust list and others not.?

Is there a specific trust rating you are referring to?

No im not talking about trust rating I'm talking about "DefaultTrust"

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1618/a2u.png

Give me 1 reason why you deserve to be in "DefaultList".

just change the default trust by adding users names you want, i also couldn't quite understand why certain members were appearing the trust list.......  ::)

This is a question I was asking myself : Why does Tradefortress have so many negative trustratings and everyone giving them is not even remotely affiliated with my trust list ? If he is scamming and extorting people  why are there no reputable members making negative comments ?

I know the answer to this questions , do you? Well, i will say it , you probably do but won't admit it. Because you are too busy hating. There i said it. Go dislike me. Now back to business.

It's not about change it's about...why a guy who's identity isn't even public, involved in many illegal things is listed on default trust list, while some peoples like ciyam open and many others are not there.

Either remove him from Default trust or rename "DefaultTrust" to "Admin's Personal Trust".

He's scamming peoples and extorting them?
lol i didn't even knew that, thanks for letting me know.

Oh btw i'm not hating him or anyone else. I'm just saying he should not be in Default Trust. That's it.

I'm not interested in discussing TF in isolation. I am curious how the entire list was devised :)

Here is some inside knowledge : He probably isn't scamming and extorting people. He just attracted a herd of butthurt newbies with coinchat.

glad to see i'm not the only one he's offended. this is starting to be a daily thing.

Whatever you are saying has nothing to do with this thread or my question. I don't care what he does on his sites or this forum.

I'm saying IT'S NOT FAIR TO ADD HIM IN DEFAULT TRUST LIST without giving a reason why he's there.

If theymos likes him he should be in his TRUST LIST not Default one.

I have changed the title, i  thought he's the only donator in default trust list.

there is one more OgNasty.

Well , i'm in the DEFAULT TRUST LIST too, where is my Thread ?

No, you are not.

Theymos trusts you, but the default trust is one level up.

In the default trust are:

 sirius
 theymos
 HostFat
 Maged
 OgNasty
 John (John K.)
 Tomatocage
 BadBear
 TradeFortress

all IMO trustworthy guys, but I also don't understand the criteria why they are in default trust.

as akka said you are not in default trust list,but if you were i wouldn't say anything because you are staff here.

All are either mod/staff/admin except these 2.

Tomatocage's case is different, he should be mod of scam accusation forum.

The first thing most people should do is remove the Default Trust list and then just add the people they trust. For example. My trust list is based off of only people I've done business with directly. My non-trusting people are folks My negative feedback is used for folks who owe me and will never repay. I'm also considering putting people in my untrusted list leaving negative feedback for folks that I can actually prove have defrauded others.

There's an untrusted list?

Of course. I have removed the default trust as well, but I have added most of the guys in the list above to my trust list.

Also it makes sense to give a trust rating if you had a successful (or unsuccessful) deal with someone, but the trust list is different that's whos feedback on other people you trust, if you only trusting the feedback of people you delt with doesn't make give enough information IMO.

Also it makes sense to have a default trust list, so new members see good and bad ratings from trustworthy members from the start. Without needing to know all the "special functions" of this forum right away.

I'm just wondering what criteria gets someone into default trust.

IMO a good way would be to handle it like the ignore button. People that are trusted by a significant amount of forum members could move to default trust automatically. To counter sock-puppet trust, this could be based on activity. For Example: Members that are in the trust list of at least a sum of 5000 Activity Points move to default trust.

Sorry, I guess I stated this incorrectly. I guess what I meant was I have given negative feedback on one individual whose debt I covered while trying to fix a BTC-E account restoration for him and who ended up running away with the Bitcoin. He ended up being basically a 16-year-old kid. My bad, I guess. I only lost 22.5 BTC, and we both learned a lesson from it.

There's basically 4 major parts to trust that everyone should know:

1) Trust List + Trust Depth: For me, I only put people that I have had a personal trade with in Bitcoins in my Trust List. Regardless of how I feel about someone's trustworthiness, I wouldn't feel comfortable putting them in my own Trust List unless I've done an actual deal with them. The Trust List itself will show ratings of people you've dealt with, plus the ratings of the next level or two based on the factor of "Trust Depth". By default, it contains a list of users that, presumably, theymos trusts, but only comes with 2 Trust Depth. You should increase this Trust Depth to 3 to see more how Trust works and why it can be powerful. As others have stated, two of those users themselves have questionable rapport with the community as a whole, but for the most part, the list kind of serves as a basis for something that users can reasonably rely on anyway.

The next few points can be viewed for my own user account here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=4171)

2) Trusted feedback: This is your own trusted feedback, as received by another user. If it's positive, it's black, if it is negative, it's red. Here I presently see that I have one trusted feedback from serp, who I bought physical Bitcoin from. You can have both positive and negative feedback.

3) Untrusted feedback: This is your own feedback again, but from users you do not trust or do not yet trust. Again, positive is black, negative is red. I think that if you look at my feedback list, you'll see serp as "Untrusted feedback", likely because he's not in the default trust.

4) Sent feedback: This is the trust reviews of the user you are currently viewing. Here on my page you'll see I have an unspecified BTC positive trust for Keefe, who helped a lot of us purchase our first BTC back in the early days. I also, like many others, had positive dealings with Casascius early on. This is also where I have my one negative rating for another user.

If there's only one thing I'd implore everyone to do, it'd be to start giving feedback and to add folks to your trust list that you trust. The more of us that use it, the more valuable it becomes, and the less we'll have to worry about scammers. The only problem with the trust system is that it requires you to do most of the work yourself, you're not going to necessarily be rewarded for giving others ratings, but it seems quite silly to NOT use this system if we have it.

Once enough people are using it, the need for a "Default Trust" will go away and be replaced by trust systems whereby folks you already know and trust are basically automatically telling you who they trust without having to independently communicate it. You can even tweak the Trust Depth to be high or low accordingly. It's actually quite powerful for something so simple.

FWIW, I have nothing personally against TradeFortress.

The fact that he is in my list of default trusts is troubling.

Someone in DefaultTrust is like a moderator responsible for cultivating a good trust network. They need to make sure that anyone trusting them sees many accurate ratings and no inaccurate ratings. Actual trustworthiness is important, but I can quickly respond to any abuses, so it isn't the most important factor in my decision to add someone to DefaultTrust.

The default trust network needs to work in this (somewhat counter-intuitive) centralized way, but you don't need to use the trust system in this way. You can use it more like a web of trust, adding only people who you trust to your trust list.

I agree that the default is necessary and that pre set people are needed in it.

But what about handling it like this?


Would this be feasible / make sense?

Then there would be too many inaccurate negative ratings. I don't want there to be any inaccurate negative ratings in the default trust network.

There have been allegations that DiamondCardz has given out inaccurate negative ratings. Do you believe these allegations to be unfounded?

Did you have to step in when TF abused his "power" to paint gweedo with negative rep ?

EDIT : John K, did you choose not to promote anyone ? (or is it just lazyness/boredom ?  ;))

I did give a few guys positive rep (check my trust link)? ??? Not sure about 'promoting' though - is that the same as giving positive feedback?

No, that's the people who you trust to give hones feedback and therefore their feedback is used to show you the numbers on the trust rating in the profile and sig..

Also all users who have you in your trust will then see the feedback of those people.


"Profile" --> "Trust" --> "Trust settings" and add the people you trust to give honest feedback.

Hmm, not sure, but here's what it looks like on my trust string with 1 depth:

http://uppix.com/f-TRUST51f6bf030013833d.png

Tomato, for example, apparently promoted Gavin, Kludge, etc.
You're just promoting the Default trust list, as far as I'm concerned - might be an issue on my side, too ?

Yes, I rearranged the trust lists to remove that rating from the default trust network. TF later removed his rating, though.


Is there a thread about this?

This is the allegation I was talking about. I removed DiamondCardz from my personal trust list after this.

For any reason, I can't see TradeFortress being in the DefaultTrust list. A reference to a small part of reasons: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211115.80

FWIW I don't see why DiamondCardz is in that default trust list either!

This doesn't say do I trust them or not, but really, default trust listing people who are anonymous and do shady things [like in the link above]?

Theymos: Out of curiousity: Was pirate on the default trust list? The thing here is that majority of people don't even know such default trust list exists or that you can modify it! I'm a long time member here and just found out about that DefaultTrust thing, this tells about how transparent this forum is.

I'm not in the DefaultTrust list, I'm just trusted by someone who is in the DefaultTrust list.


Most of these allegations are by people who are mad, including newbies. I have a load of false negative ratings against me from phished accounts/scammers, and that's where most of the allegations come from. I'll look through the negative ratings I've given, but IMHO most of them are sound.


Please make a thread so I can review these so-called allegations. The only one I remember was when Pi Coin was annoyed - I still do not trust him, but I removed the negative rep because I really can't be asked to get into a fight at the moment.

...You're trusted by TradeFortress which makes you and your ratings be in the DefaultTrust list, just like everyone else in the list. You just have the restriction you can't add people on the list, TF can.

A good reason to never consider doing business on this forum.

I don't really _trust_ the trust system of this forum since it's clearly not working. #bitcoin-otc / Web of Trust @ Freenode works very well. There are no "default trust lists", removal of ratings or anything like that in there.

I just really can't see why TradeFortress is in this list. As a person who can add people on the list, too.

Reasons:
- He intentionally lured newbies to lose their ripple-bitcoins. related: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211115.0
- Rumours say he've sold his web development services and done poor job. And then been messing up with the site.. reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=223665
- Asks for access to others' accounts at IRC (#bitcoin-otc @Freenode). No reference for this since I got this info from IRC and we discussed it there a while ago. You can ask more info from a #bitcoin-otc operator TheLordOfTime. There's absolutely no reason to EVER ask for others passwords or access to their accounts. A web developer should know this...
- he's anonymous..

Let me make those highlighted things clear.
Starting from the first hilight:

#1: How has it changed the facts about what he did? He lured people to trust him without telling them they will lose all their real valuable backed ripple bitcoins (if they had any) when they added the trust towards him.
#2: Looked it again and it shows they're not just rumours since TradeFortress has confirmed it himself. He did do a job, then "penetration tested" it without any permission from the customer. He offered to fix the security vulnerabilities for extra cost. Basicly means he made an unsecure product for customer, hacked it and tried to get more money out of him.
#3: I added a note in there. Also, TradeFortress have confirmed this himself. Me having no straight link or a reference for summary doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'll say it again: It did happen and TF confirmed it.
#4: Sure. Anyway, this was the least important of the listed reasons.

Edit:
This is not meant to be a rant against TradeFortress. These things just somehow don't get administrators attention.

I did tell them, it's right on RippleScam.org which I linked in the post :)

Yes, people have lost money from the social experiment, and that's something I don't plan on repeating. You'll note that I refunded the webr3 guy who then put it back on Ripple again to lose it.


Yes, I do that, for multiple sites including this forum. Malicious hackers do not ask for permission, I don't perform anything intrusive / service impacting like DirBuster or another automated scanner without permission.

Also, I don't actually exploit bugs I pentested beyond "you done goofed".


False. The vulnerability comes from code that the customer added himself or paid someone to add.

You might consider finding and reporting vulnerabilities unethical, I don't :)

FYI:
http://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/
https://www.facebook.com/whitehat

A "don't pentest our site without our permission" strategy is literally the worst you can have. It's as stupid as 'gun free zones' - if law abiding citizens can't bring guns, then only criminals who don't respect the sign will have guns. You're not going to get prosecuted if you perform responsible disclosure.

Like I said, I don't do intrusive pentests.

I'm sure they would be glad to hear about the bugs you find, as long as you don't release customer's data or notify the media before you actually disclose them to AT&T.

Bottom line is Tradefortress isn't the material many of us consider trustworthy by default. There is more to being trustworthy than simply paying back debt.

Part of this is integrity which he's lacking,

You expect to get a lot of hate when you wrote RippleScam.org :)

Generally "many of us" (see Viceroy, gweedo, ElectricMucus, that ripple shill I can't remember) have bright orange ignore ratings.

It is sad, people like Erik, Charlie Sherm, Roger Ver, Charles Lee, Jared, should I go on? I mean how are these people passed over for spots on the default trust list? Makes no sense, but this is one of the downfalls of this forum.

You haven't lost integrity with affiliating with this site, but by stepping on other people by trying to make your point.

You are aware that this "stepping on other people" involves someone who wants to lose 10 BTC to prove a point?

He had ~10 BTC vulnerable.
I took it before someone else could and asked where he wants it sent to.
Despite telling in no unclear words that someone else will take it again, he says he wanted it back on ripple. He wants someone else to take it so he can yell "tradefortress is very untrustworthy".

You could say it's my fault for enabling this to happen in the first place even through I gained nothing, but this is not "stepping on other people".


They certainly show a significant amount of people on the forum has a better experience not seeing your messages :)

Talking with gweedo and ElectricMucus is as effective as Goat vs BadBear or MPOE-PR vs JoelKartz, unless you have something better to say I will be making better use of my time (ie not responding to your posts).

MPOE-PR is in the piss-orange club too, and they're a central part of the Bitcoin economy. Expressing ones opinion which isn't popular is one thing doing business is another,
I see it as an honour that so many ideology minded people can't stand me.

I just realised I'm in the default trust list  8)

Not entirely sure why. But great!

No you are not, you are in theymos's Trust List.

As far as I am concerned it doesn't really matter which analogy you find fitting, this wasn't a class act period. Being smug about it makes things worse.
This is also the difference between "having an orange ignore button" and "loss of integrity due to harmful actions".

You are a sociopath, an intelligent one, but never the less as disruptive as the commonplace retard.

#bitcoin-otc does have something like a default trust list, in fact. You're not allowed to rate people if you don't have a positive rating, so everyone in the WoT needs to be indirectly trusted by nanotube.


Then replace DefaultTrust with other users in your trust list. The main purpose of the trust system is to prevent newbies from falling for obvious scams, so there needs to be some sort of default trust list.


Those people don't actually use the trust system much AFAIK, so adding them to DefaultTrust would be pointless. DefaultTrust is not a list of trustworthy people. It's a list of people who give accurate ratings and trust people who give accurate ratings.

Like being trapped in a malicious credit game? Yes, yes I get you are with TF on that one.

I still hope that some day you'll see the facts more clearly.

There's nothing like a default trust system in #bitcoin-otc. That's bullshit. It's a full trust network, this is just a LIST and there are just a few members who can add people on the list.

As I said, MANY don't even know such thing as DefaultTrust list EXISTS. And you talk about falling for obvious scams.. Read this thread and look the parts which tell things about TradeFortress.

I think it's very clear that TradeFortress doesn't belong on that list. The password/account access asking @IRC by TradeFortress is a big enough reason to delete him from the list immediately. Why don't you comment these obvious things?

Theymos you should do something about scammers, peoples are still getting scammed as sometimes they don't check Trust ratings and from outside members profile looks fine even with negative rating.

+1

Theymos why do you want every newbie and other members to trust a anonymous guy 'TradeFortress"
Do you have his info?

I agree, one should have:

- Red marker growing flashy as your trusted list leave negative feedback.
- Orange marker growing flashy as everyone leaves negative feedback.
- Yellow marker growing flashy as everyone leaves leaves positive feebdack.
- Green marker growing flashy as your trusted list leaves positive feedback.

Also, clicking on those markers to go to the user trust feedbacks page would be great.

Cause it's a pain to find the feedback page for users you did not receive any from your trusted list.
Cause It's confusing to have some users allowing you a direct click to their trust and others not.

He's actually fully supportive of TF.

It's not because TradeFortress is necessarily trusted by theymos, or anything like that. If you read what theymos said, it's because TradeFortress and the people he trusts give accurate ratings, both negative and positive. Not because theymos endorses anything that TradeFortress does, although he may have his own opinion.

I've done a few trades, given tons of feedback but I still have no feedback. Seems it's just too much effort for people.

Slightly offtopic but there should be something to make the process of OTC feedback quicker too - just click a button rather than:
connect to irc, ident, auth with gpg, find user you want to rate, ident that user, decide on wieght to rate, rate the user and comment the user.

--snip snip--

Zaih is not on defaulttrust, what are you talking about ems?

Actually bro he was under theymos before.
Theymos removed him after I did complaint.

Trust depth 2 is not default trust (Trust depth 1) unless I am wrong.

People see trust depth 2 trust ratings same way as depth 1. So yes it is (almost the same), they just can't add more people.